Comments on: Is a mediator needed to settle Icesave?

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:54:18 +0000

Yes totally agree that Depositors who enjoyed 5.8% should loose all their money for the following
1) Believing in European regulation
2) Believing in reports supporting those banks as AAA rated higher than Barclays and Lloyds amongst a few names of reputable banks.
3) Trusting Iceland as a Nordic country with dreams to succeed and a sense of fair play.
4) Trusting a bunch of amateurs playing a half whetted version of “Yes Minister” with an ex arsonist for a politician.
5) Believing that there could be an honest bank and an honest system.
Well, what have we left to Saddam to claim? Is this justice? To date none of those responsible have been punished or imprisoned for their crimes not in Iceland, Isle of Man or even the UK. So who is responsible? Ah you guessed it the poor depositor, the pensioner, those who fought so hard for what Europe stands for now!
I can’t make any sense of this other than it appears that those who had money in Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan seem to faired better since their banks have proven to be more reliable and their depositors still have acces to their money despite the fact that Pakistan was nearly bankrupt yet it still faired better than an advanced European country that failed miserably on that front.
What a sorry state of affair this really is.

By: Bjarni

Bjarni — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:05:58 +0000

To Peter – London:

>>>>There will be no chance of Iceland stopping seizure as EU (EFTA Court) has already decided, and Iceland has agreed, on Icelandic liability.

Exactly what EU (EFTA Court) decision are you referring too?

Please provide actual references and quotes, so we can determine, if this is just your opinion or a real fact.

By: Jimbo (original Jim)

Jimbo (original Jim) — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:07:22 +0000

If Icelanders vote to reject the bill, then it’ll probably go to arbitration. Should be an interesting case, but I wonder if the result will be any different to last arbitration attempt…

By: Peter - London

Peter - London — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:10:16 +0000

“This deposit guarantee schemes they are just a false sense of security and just do distort the banks and consumer behaviors.”

Nothing of the sort, a guarantee is un-breakable and has to be paid. If its a not then the word cannot be applied, its would be fraudulent.

You had the temerity in the past to suggest that the Icelandic banks were well run, yet you seem happy to state that they were committing fraud on their depositors and this was a perfectly acceptable situation??

By: Peter - London

Peter - London — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:04:14 +0000

Fish:
“In that case they are going to have to sue us.

In court.

Here in Iceland. Then quickly decision of settlement would go upto EFTA Court for decision and ruling.

Which is just fine. To court!”

No, they don’t. They can seize assets in any jurisdiction using the local courts, in the EU, US etc. There will be no chance of Iceland stopping seizure as EU (EFTA Court) has already decided, and Iceland has agreed, on Icelandic liability. The debt is a due and payment has to be made – failure to pay makes immediate repayment an option and from that seizure for default.

If Iceland had any legal option then they would have pursued it – neither political party, when in power, did so.

So stop dreaming about a day in court – it won’t happen.

By: Fisy

Fisy — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:03:41 +0000

One thing I would like to mention here in paralell to what steveservaes says above, that I hope there are people on this boards that do member the days before 94/19/EC did distort the banking markets.

The old days before then when people did not blindly think that regulator will do they jobs.

And when instead of this rush to find best instant accesses account with best rate instead to get good rate you would have to tie up you money in something NOT instant access.

This deposit guarantee schemes they are just a false sense of security and just do distort the banks and consumer behaviors.

Moral hazard is created at best or in worst cases as we have already seen we gets this pumped up free money risk chasing situation where the IceSave branch can attract so much money * only * because it has the deposit guarantee schemes.

( And just so there no misunderstanding I believe you can not accuse Kaupthing Isle of Man or Landsbanki Gurneseys depositors as being ” risk chaser ” — they had they money in these places for different reasons; usually becasue result of stupid UK money laundering goldplated regualtions make it difficult for British ex-pat to open bank accounts at home. )

By: AB

AB — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:15:54 +0000

Oh, be serious: does anyone serious expect that Iceland will do anything which they prefer not to do, whether it is passed by their legislators, adjudged by a court, awarded by an arbitral tribunal, or proposed by a mediator ? Stop wasting our time and grow up.

By: Aggi

Aggi — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:49:46 +0000

“And since when do we care about international public opinion? Public opinion doesn’t matter for the EU, they have proven that over and over.”

Nice indeed!! Not on EU only but most nations rule by the mob.

We are witnessing the best entertainment in Icelandic history up to now.

By: Grim Reaper

Grim Reaper — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:32:41 +0000

Please remember that in any arbitration, the other party can also submit matters for arbitration. This means that Iceland cannot cherry-pick the bits it thinks it can win a case on, because it may lose the bigger argument on other matters raised by the UK and Dutch Governments. The stakes are very high for Iceland if it chooses to go to arbitration etc. If Iceland loses arguments and in doing so is indicating that it was prepared to default on international financial commitments, it will find it very difficult to obtain future international financing or inward investment because of the perceived default risk. 5.5% is a fair and reasonable deal. It is less than the Icesave and EDGE interest rates, it is 4.5% less than the Icelandic Central Bank lending rate which the UK and Dutch governments may argue should be the norm for loans involving Iceland,and it is better than Iceland could get if it was to issue bonds on the international market.

By: Grim Reaper

Grim Reaper — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:24:07 +0000

Eva Joly should focus on her job which is intended to ensure that asset recovery is maximized. If that happens then the actual amount that Icelanders have to repay under the Icesave deal will be much smaller. There is too much focus by Icelanders on the terms of the deal and not enough focus on recovering assets from the pyramid scheme bankers and businessmen.